File talk:EdwinRushton.jpg
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
[following discussion copied from Commons:Village pump/Copyright]
- The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I'd like some guidance regarding the image File:EdwinRushton.jpg — specifically, whether it qualifies for {{PD-US}} or not. It's a photo clearly taken prior to 1904 (the year the subject died), and it appears to have been in the possession of the subject's family and uploaded to Commons by one of his descendants. The photographer is unknown (and probably unknowable), and there is most likely no way to know when or whether the photo was ever published or registered for copyright in the US (though if the photo stayed in the family, an educated guess is that the photographer never did any of these things). Thus, I'm unsure of whether the photo is in the public domain because any copyright it might have had has lapsed — or whether we must assume it's still copyrighted because the unknown photographer might possibly have died less than 70 years ago. Comments? Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- US Copyright Act specifically put the threshold, set in 01.01.1923 - all works published prior to such date are in the PD within US. If the image was first published in United States - then it is safe to put in in the PD worldwide. --RussianTrooper (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand this — but what if the photo was never "published" at all? Does the 1923 rule still apply, because the photo was taken before 1923, even if it was never included in any book before 1923? Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well as I far as it is stated on Wikipedia article on copyright terms all works prior to 1923 is believed to be expired. --RussianTrooper (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand this — but what if the photo was never "published" at all? Does the 1923 rule still apply, because the photo was taken before 1923, even if it was never included in any book before 1923? Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Death of the author is irrelevant in the US if it was published between 1923 and 1978, and it's still copyrighted no matter when the death of the author if it was published between 1978 and 2002. Only after 2002 is it really life+70. There is no PD-US-anonymous, though there are some legal protections if a work is 120 years and the author or author's death date can't be found after due diligence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Prosfilaes, in your opinion, is this particular image definitely PD-US? Definitely not PD-US? What questions (if any) need to be asked and answered before we can be sure? If no more info can ever be had, and we must assume (worst case?) that the photo was taken in 1904 by a forever-unknowable photographer (no way to even start trying to find out who took the picture) and never appeared in any printed work (other than a single copy kept privately by family members), what licensing status do we assign it, and can it stay on Commons or not? Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Worst case is actually that it was published between 1978 and 2002. We need to know when it was first published (and in which country) in order to definitely determine its copyright status. If it was first published between 1923 and 2002, it might still be copyrighted; if first published after 2002 it might well be in the public domain (depending on when the author died). Powers (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Prosfilaes, in your opinion, is this particular image definitely PD-US? Definitely not PD-US? What questions (if any) need to be asked and answered before we can be sure? If no more info can ever be had, and we must assume (worst case?) that the photo was taken in 1904 by a forever-unknowable photographer (no way to even start trying to find out who took the picture) and never appeared in any printed work (other than a single copy kept privately by family members), what licensing status do we assign it, and can it stay on Commons or not? Richwales (talk · contribs) 15:30, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted something at the uploader's Wikipedia talk page, asking for more information. If he has no more information (or if I can't get him to reply), the best assumptions are probably that the photo was created in the US, no later than 1904, and it was never published, and it was never copyrighted, and the creator (photographer) is unknown. As I read Commons:Licensing, the relevant classification would appear to be "anonymous works created but not published before January 1, 1978", in which case the photo would be protected for 95 years from the year of creation (i.e., until no later than 1999) — and this would mean the image is PD-US. Or am I still misunderstanding something here? Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 120 years from creation. The sentence to which I think you refer in Commons:Licensing is worded in a somewhat confusing manner. Preferably, you can use the summary table or, even better, the Hirtle chart. That said, how old do you think the man looks on this photo? If he was not more than 65, then the photo was created before 1891 and 120 years have passed since then. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, he could be 64, or even in his fifties, but also 66, 67... hard to say. Given the research above, I would say that it is very, very likely that this image is PD-US, but we can't be entirely sure. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 120 years from creation. The sentence to which I think you refer in Commons:Licensing is worded in a somewhat confusing manner. Preferably, you can use the summary table or, even better, the Hirtle chart. That said, how old do you think the man looks on this photo? If he was not more than 65, then the photo was created before 1891 and 120 years have passed since then. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've posted something at the uploader's Wikipedia talk page, asking for more information. If he has no more information (or if I can't get him to reply), the best assumptions are probably that the photo was created in the US, no later than 1904, and it was never published, and it was never copyrighted, and the creator (photographer) is unknown. As I read Commons:Licensing, the relevant classification would appear to be "anonymous works created but not published before January 1, 1978", in which case the photo would be protected for 95 years from the year of creation (i.e., until no later than 1999) — and this would mean the image is PD-US. Or am I still misunderstanding something here? Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The uploader responded to my inquiry just now as follows:
- "The specific photograph is in the form of a small (about an inch wide by an inch and a half high) photographic print, glued among several others to a sort of a photographic pedigree chart, prepared a very long time ago by my paternal grandmother. I can only assume that she had this picture, and probably the negative thereof, because this was of one of her own ancestors, in this case, her maternal grandfather. (I believe she produced similar pages for several of my cousins around the same time, so I presume she had access then to the negative from which to have as many prints made as she needed of this and other photographs that she used for this purpose.) She's been dead now, for more than twenty years, so I cannot very well ask her where she got this picture.... Edwin Rushton died in 1904—more than a hundred years ago—at the age of about eighty years, and this photograph appears to be of him at a considerably younger age than that."
- So I guess this is probably the most info we mere mortals can ever hope to have. Based on this, do we want to go with "very, very likely"? Or do we still need to err if necessary on the side of ultra-hyper-cautiousness and remove the image because we cannot be absolutely sure that no one could possibly come along at this point and assert their rights to it? I'm not trying to push for a decision either way; I just want the decision (whatever it ends up being) to be fully informed and in keeping with the accepted Commons norms. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other versions on the web, such as here and here, so we may be able to assume publication at some point long ago (as clearly this book is not the only source of the photo, and it was probably published by the time it was put into the book). I could support a PD-US license on this one, though of course would prefer to see the photo in a pre-1923 publication for certainty. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl, as best I can tell, the photos in the two sites you cited are not in fact the same photo as the one under discussion — note, for example, that he's wearing a different tie / ascot / whatever. So I tend to think they're not relevant to the question of whether this photo of Rushton was ever published anywhere.
Based on all the above, I'm going to go ahead and assert a PD-US licence for this image, as an unpublished anonymous work that was most likely created more than 120 years ago. If anyone can find more information — or if anyone decides they're not happy with even the tiny likelihood that someone might assert a copyright claim (and be able to prove it) — then, of course, the matter can be revisited at that time. I'll copy this discussion to the image's talk page to preserve an easily findable record thereof. Richwales (talk · contribs) 01:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, sorry -- they are different photos. So yes, if this has been unpublished til now, it would need to be 120 years from creation to be PD, which it probably is. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
